It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
There more than enough forum-threads about the topics, which the author of this forum-thread mentioned, here. Would you please try not to be so redundant? People in the U.S. government have been showing the evidence you requested, for over 5 years.




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I rarely respond to 911 threads anymore. What can I say? I burned out. I got sick of those who believe authority as truth rather than truth as the authority. I got sick of those who know the truth but care little to do something about it. I got sick of it all. I just can't compete in the special Olympics anymore.

The video evidence is really all we have to go on as online posters and the "september clues" vids do a perfect job of exposing the TV fakery. And yet I have seen people refute the "september clues" vids dispite the fact that film doesn't lie. So I realized that it doesn't matter how many smoking guns you show a person, some people just will not accept truth.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
For me there are so many anomalies with the official story that it is a challenge to even know where to start. Here are a few.

WTC7, molten steel, 118 firefighters reporting explosions, the FBI investigating ‘bombs in the building’, NORAD nowhere to be seen as they were probably distracted with drills, Bush saying he saw the first strike (twice), Iraq and Afghanistan plans for war already drawn up pre 9/11, FBI’s Harry Samit’s 70 warnings to superiors plus John O’neil, the most powerful military with the biggest budget in the history of the world being out-foxed by 19 hijackers with UBL still apparently on the loose, pulverized concrete, put options, Operation Northwoods, The 9/11 Commission Report (speaks for itself), law of conservation of energy, multiple unheeded warnings, possible traces of thermite being found etc etc

Plus Bill Cooper’s research and his warnings on the 28th June 2001 about the pending 9/11 attack – “..but it won’t be Osama Bin laden it will be those behind the NWO”
www.youtube.com...


Anyway here is one which I still don’t know why people don’t get upset about.. It doesn’t prove 9/11 was an inside job, but IMO it does show that total and utter incompetence was demonstrated which should have resulted in criminal charges being laid (or at the very least impeachment)

www.youtube.com...
width="425" height="355"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/bDfdOwt2v3Y&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">



So, if Norman Mineta’s testimony is indeed correct, then why did Dick Cheney NOT have the Pentagon evacuated when the plane was 50, 30, 10 miles out?. The negligent actions by Cheney resulted in more lives being lost than necessary. This is absolutely UNFORGIVEABLE and Cheney needs to feel the full brunt of the law. Otherwise Mineta needs to be charged with perjury or at least further clarify his statement (which I believe he already has done – ie no change to his statement under oath).

Not that it isn’t obvious that we have been lied to for decades though anyway as all you have to do is research all the suppressed medical and alternative energy solutions found in many government legal documents otherwise known as US patents.
The truth is out there



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Listen to what Italy's former President said about 911. This isnt Alex Jones, it's the former President.

www.infowars.com...

Now listen to what a senior officer in Japan's government say's about it:

benjaminfulford.com...




If you do the research, you would be either naieve or just plain ignorant to not question how our government covered up the events of that day.

Also, google William Rodriguez, 911 bomb, trade center. This is a guy who was in the basement oof the WTC on 911(with 14 other witnesses)when a bomb went off right as the first plane hit, read his story. What about all of the firemen and police officers who were in the building and witnessed boms going off? These people testified before the 911 commission(along with William Rodriguez) and they were shunned, they were told it never happened. William Rodriguez has had his life threatened. All of the major news agencies interviewed and were told by the government to not air the story. How come? Duh! What about the 5 Jews who were celebrating when the towers fell? People calld the police on them, they were pulled over and the police found bombs in their van along w/ maps of NYC. The Mossad called our government and they were released 14 days later? It was reported once on TV, when it happened. After that, no word, ever. I wonder why?

Im sure you think building 7 fell all by itself too, right? Why do 50% of New Yorkers who live in the city think there was a coverup? This isnt just Alex Jones and his people who think this a cospiracy. Its half of NYC!!!!!

Do the research. Not onle is this a coverup, it may be the most blatant coverup of all time.

I myseld am tired of those who hbelieve our government. Why did I spend ten minutes writing this? Lets pretend I showed you a secret video of Cheany and Bush planning 911 before it happened(I dont think they planned it, but they sure did nothing to stop it), your our one of those people who still woulnt believe it.

It gave the US the reason it wanted to justify war, put 2 puppets in office(in Afg. and Irq)and control the oill.

Wake up man...

[edit on 28-1-2008 by gabriel5578]

[edit on 28-1-2008 by gabriel5578]

[edit on 28-1-2008 by gabriel5578]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Sorry, double posted.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by gabriel5578]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 



I agree I haven't seen this video before but I think it proves that video trickery and Media involvement. However, if this has been debunked could some one point me to it? If not I can't see how anyone could now not think and see this for what it would be i.e. Proof that it was a completly planned attack on innocent people for '????insert here what fits????' start to finish with Governments/Media/Military planning.

I await someone to put me right about this video?

Thanks



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Here is what was said by the man who designed the twin towers. pilotsfor911truth.org... Hope you find it interesting as did I.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Science has told us a great deal concerning what occurred on 9/11. There is definitely a difference between pseudo-science published by those touting the "official" reports vs. the science tested and published by qualified scientists.

I am truly sorry if people cannot understand the difference between pseudo-science and science. Because science (laws of nature) has always been the key to resolving exactly what happened on 9/11/2001.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
As far as I can determine, the discussions would not be so redundant, if some people were not consistently touting the "official" reports, without being able to prove valid science exists in those "official" reports. We have consistently received the same cites from "official" reports, as if that proves anything of valid substance. Which they do not and never have.

As far as I can determine, the initial post was attempting to make that clear to those doing nothing but reciting the "official" reports, without substantiating the "official" reports are valid. Which they are not.

Simply citing the "official" reports is not valid reason for voraciously promoting the "official" reports. All that does is send each discussion into pages of meaningless text of no validity. The discussions themselves are self-evident of that.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

The video evidence is really all we have to go on as online posters and the "september clues" vids do a perfect job of exposing the TV fakery. And yet I have seen people refute the "september clues" vids dispite the fact that film doesn't lie. So I realized that it doesn't matter how many smoking guns you show a person, some people just will not accept truth.


Perhaps, this will help you feel more at ease. Those touting the "official" reports are not refuting anything. They are disputing because they do not agree. To refute, one has to validly disprove, and they have consistently failed to do that. Simply mimicking the "official" reports, of pseudo-science, is not refuting. It is disputing based on personal opinion and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

That is not the way people correctly use acronyms. However OOB aptly fits this - Objective Observer Believer. Which would be self-contradictory. Objective you certainly are not. You have continuously projected that from your own thoughts expressed in these discussions.


I simply had to respond to this, because I would feel bad letting you continue to believe such obviously false information.

acronym - a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.

So yes, OOB was correct in it's original context. You're welcome.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars



That is not the way people correctly use acronyms. However OOB aptly fits this - Objective Observer Believer. Which would be self-contradictory. Objective you certainly are not. You have continuously projected that from your own thoughts expressed in these discussions.


Right - and you've spent 5 pages now showing how you haven't got an open spot in your mind. You are the stereotype that I avoid. You've just stated that a person who is staying open minded to both sides of the argument as the data continues to come in is not objective - which can be translated...

"IF YOU'RE NOT WITH ME YOU'RE AGAINST ME"

seems I've heard that from at least one other fanatic as well...what was his name....hmmm.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kranil

So yes, OOB was correct in it's original context. You're welcome.


It looks as if you missed something which necessarily has to apply to all acronyms. Realism of abstract connotation, not merely superficial denotation. In order for OOB to apply, people have to be objective, and be assessed as so by others not themselves. People are not always in the best mindset position to assess their own objectivity. That assessment has to be by consensus of others on the receiving end not giving end.

You really do not have to show any concern, regarding the way I view life compared to you. You're welcome back attcha.

It beneficially pays not to be condescending toward others. Because expectation should be in eventually getting it back when you do it. Objective people are rarely condescending, unless provoked to that point by those who are consistently condescending/patronizing toward them.

If you think you are so objective, why don't you take your own words, as if someone stated them to you, and objectively assess how you would feel if someone threw that condescending attitude at you, instead of you throwing it at me or anyone else?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

It beneficially pays not to be condescending toward others. Because expectation should be in eventually getting it back when you do it. Objective people are rarely condescending, unless provoked to that point by those who are consistently condescending/patronizing toward them.



Yep - you finally got something right. It was your repeated condescending patronizing and downright aggravating behavior that pushed me over my line. In fact, I don't believe I had ever said a word to you until you just kept driveling on for pages.

Some one said something a few pages back about how you've railroaded this thread to your own means. Here several pages later you're still doing it.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Some one said something a few pages back about how you've railroaded this thread to your own means. Here several pages later you're still doing it.


Now you, as have the others on your side of the opposing arguments, started and continued to make this about me. On my side of the points of argument, that was rarely if ever stated. At least, I never saw that stated or implied by anyone on my side of points of argument. While you may have a consensus on your opposing side in agreement wth you, that is not a full consensus of opinion.

As usual, you are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to be wrong with facts.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Orion,


It has been brought to my attention by another member who seems to have been noticing your distracting behavior in threads like this for some time that you tend to derail almost every 911 thread you post in much like you are doing here.

What is it about this subject that leads you to take action to divert the conversation away from the original topic(s)?

Is there some agenda, some end-goal at play behind your disruptive behavior?

[edit on 1-28-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Let me try one more time, Ultima.

I'm an OOB - that's what my first post was all about. I'm an OOB. Go back and read what that means.



Well i believe its either you believe the official story or you don't.

I have been doing research for years and so far most of the evidence i have found proves the official story is missing or left out a lot of information.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahuman
People in the U.S. government have been showing the evidence you requested, for over 5 years.


That's so easy to say, but can you show it? The important evidence you're going to have to try to point to is going to be along the lines of the Kean Commission report, the NIST report, or the FEMA report. All of those have major holes, depending on what specific information you're looking for in them, including the whole scientific testing of NIST's hypothesis in their report. They did no testing whatsoever of their final hypothesis on the collapse initiation mechanism. So what is there really to show? I can say that there is plenty of evidence that it was an inside job, too. It's also a very easy thing to say.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
A lack of evidence is not in and of itself, evidence.

Which security level from which agency? You know, the agencies that rarely talked to each other about anything? This last statement show incompetence, not complicity.


Well yes a lack of evidence can be evidence. Its used in court a lot.

There were classified and unclassified intell from the different agencies, they did not need to talk to each other to pass on the warnings.

If an agency like NORAD was incompetent why was no one punished or fired. Instead people involved were given promotions and awards.


[edit on 28-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Orion,


It has been brought to my attention by another member who seems to have been noticing your distracting behavior in threads like this for some time that you tend to derail almost every 911 thread you post in much like you are doing here.


I just told you that you and anyone else is entitled to opinion. You could not let it go at that after expressing your opinions.

Can your side ensure this is the last time I, or others, are provoked into reminding your side, that the plural you started and deflected far too many discussions by making them personal?

I was under the impression people, posting to these discussions, are on the same intellectual level. I speak and write the same to anyone, not just people in these discussions. Thanks to your opposing side, I have been duly informed I was completely wrong on same intellectual levels in these discussions. I will keep those differing intellectual degree comprehensions, or lack thereof, in mind in the future.

Now - can your side stay on topic from this moment on, and stop deflecting with illogical fallacies? Back to the regularly scheduled program.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join